Page 29 - Collecting and Displaying China's Summer Palace in the West
P. 29

14  Louise Tythacott
              France. 123  Between December 1861 and April 1863, at least seven auctions of “Palais
              d’Été” material took place at the Hôtel Drouot in Paris and, one of the most vocal
              critics of the loot, Victor Hugo, even acquired his own personal collection. Montauban
              presented several hundred pieces to the imperial couple—Napoleon III and Eugénie.
              Inspired by these gifts, Eugénie created displays of “Oriental curiosities” in a redesigned
              wing of the Palace of Fontainebleau. Here, some of the most significant Yuanmingyuan
              treasures—porcelain, jades, cloisonné, gold, lacquer, bronzes, and paintings—were
              placed on exhibition in 1863 (see Figure 10.3). As Thomas argues, these were a way
              to “reinforce France’s imperial status during the reign of Emperor Napoleon III,” which
              depended upon “recognition of similarity and even equivalence between China’s
              imperial culture and France’s own royal and imperial heritage.” 124  Even today, several
              hundred Chinese objects can be seen in Fontainebleau’s Musée Chinois—discussed by
              Droguet and Thomas in Chapters 9 and 10 (see Figures 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 10.1, and 10.4).
                One of the key works on the dispersal of the looting of Yuanmingyuan objects,
              James Hevia’s, English Lessons (2003), was the first to analyze the trajectories and
              locations of the material in the West. In particular, Hevia highlighted the shifting
              meanings attached to Summer Palace things, variously depicted as “prizes of war, as
              military trophies, as gifts for British and French monarchs, as commodities for sale
              on the international auction market, as museum pieces, as objects to be put on display
              at international expositions, as curiosities, and later as high art.” 125  Hevia noted how,
              at each location, objects acquired “new meanings, ones which rather than clarifying
              their status, embedded them more deeply in alien discourses and exotic modes of
              cultural production.” 126  Above all, he conceptualizes 1860 loot as signifying imperial
              humiliation: 127  “What more commanding image could there be for the constitution
              of colonizing subjectivities than the appropriation of the signs of another ‘sovereign’
              and the assimilation of these signs to oneself.” 128  Yuanmingyuan treasures thus
              functioned as “material proof” of British power over China. 129
                In particular, once relocated to Britain or France, Yuanmingyuan material was
              reformed to fit the aesthetics and tastes of the time—visual transformations that are
              taken up in this volume by Hill (Chapter 4), Pierson (Chapter 5), Droguet (Chapter 9),
              and Thomas (Chapter 10). Some pieces became hybridized—the chandelier at
              Fontainebleau, for example, which, dismembered and reconfigured, still hangs as the
              centerpiece of Eugénie’s Musée Chinois (see Droguet, Chapter 9 and Thomas, Chapter
              10, and Figures 9.4, 10.1 and 10.3); or the separation of the “Skull of Confucius”
              and its radical reconceptualization after the 1862 exhibition, as noted by Pearce
              (Chapter 3) and Hill (Chapter 4). 130  Hill and Pierson (Chapters 4 and 5) assert that
              before the arrival of this imperial material, few high-quality Chinese objects had been
              widely seen in Europe. 131  The collection and display of Yuanmingyuan artifacts in
              Britain and France from the 1860s on thus represented a pivotal shift in the idea of
              Chinese “art” in the West. Cocks notes “how . . . connoisseurs realized that for the
              first time they were seeing the art made for the elevated tastes of the Imperial Court
              instead of the Western export trade.” 132  Pearce too writes that 1860 was a “watershed
              in terms of a shift in taste and of interest by Europeans in Chinese art, as it marks
              the development in the taste for elaborate eighteenth-century jades, porcelains, and
              enamels in Europe during the second half of the nineteenth-century.” 133
                Today, Yuanmingyuan material in Western museums is highly politicized, and
              is sometimes difficult to locate either on display or in store. As noted earlier, it is
              not always clear which of the thousands of buildings in the imperial gardens these
   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34